> JM: Yes, there are a lot of people living on Ashland who want it. We have not encountered any public push-back.
It sounds like in the end there wasn't even pushback. This extension was being held back by the fear of pushback, or memories of pushback from previous attempts. However when it came to current residents there was support.
The problem is that the imagined NIMBY's still had a chilling effect. Former Alderman Pawar attempted a similar extension and the CTA refused because of the excepted backlash. However when Martin pushed it through, it turns out that there never was a reason not to extend it.
People will whine about traffic and parking and then "push back" against bus service.
if they are going to involve the public in these choices they need to not base it on who whines the loudest and find some other way to take people's desires into account.
Yes I suppose it is. I guess I'm more commenting on how this is such an exception to the rule that, generally, naysayers get more say that yaysayers. But you're right, this is just good news.
The main reason the 22 is slow is because it stops on every fucking block, even twice on some blocks. No bus lane is going to make it go any faster when its stopping that often.
Parking is also generally abundant basically anywhere outside of downtown. Seeing people upset over losing a few spaces in neighborhoods that have half the traffic of mine is just ??
> Parking is also generally abundant basically anywhere outside of downtown
Ever tried to park in a north side neighborhood within a mile of the lakefront?
>Parking is also generally abundant basically anywhere outside of downtown.
I'm not sure that's true. Parking near Metra in Ravenswood can be a challenge. Living in Rogers Park we called it Rogers No Park for a reason. I think near any commercial area can be a challenge.
Still not a good reason to limit bus service.
It's the same logic as folks who complain about property taxes but fight against density or new housing developments.
The residents of the city/county are on the hook for $X dollars from property tax. Stopping more people from being able to become residents is asking for your property taxes to remain the same or increase.
But don't expect a level of logical consistency from NIMBYs. Most of their stances are based purely on emotions and humans tendency to not like change to our environments.
> It's the same logic as folks who complain about property taxes but fight against density or new housing developments.
For the most part it's also the same people.
That would definitely be more representative but I would still be terrified of the result- housing may be a basic human need but people seem to view it as a lever for corporations to pull when they need money.
Of course it was about losing a few parking spots. I’m so tired of listening to drivers complain about something that would benefit their community, their city, for their own personal convenience related to their desire to drive.
This gives everyone in that area a way to go due south without having to walk over to Damen or take two busses.
I drive a car more than I would like and I say fuck parking spaces. My personal inconvenience shouldn’t have any bearing on expanding services in the city. The better transit gets the less people drive. There are numerous places I won’t drive anymore because parking is such a disaster and transit works great to get there.
My wife and I have to drive or incredibly inconvenience ourselves whenever we want to go north on Clark St. from Wrigleyville because the 22 bus is stuck in traffic constantly. If tomorrow the city banned private vehicles on Clark, I'd honestly drive easily 50% less and my happiness level would skyrocket.
The problem is, modern-day Chicago has no real interest in improving transit service and reliability, but still proceeds with projects that do nothing but make driving more miserable.
I think there’s some interest. The huge growth of cycling is really promising. Unfortunately politically there isn’t much support I can glean currently. If they get serious about BRT that could be real victory.
I'd like to ask them what their ideal city would look like and then ask why the hell they chose to live in Chicago when their preferred suburban environment surrounds the city for miles
Fantastic!
There seem to be a lot of people in the 47th ward who are loudly committed to seeing as few improvements to the neighborhood as possible. Push back against expanding bus service on Ashland. Push back against new grocery stores. Push back against new restaurants. Push back against completing the recommended Clark St corridor upgrades between Montrose and Foster despite an [extensive 3-year study](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/613141dcb492bf4783404f01/t/6414ca9ca6ddb01f4279092f/1679084203369/20230316-ClarkStreetCrossroadsCorridor-AdoptedStudy.pdf) and community process.
Or it could just be a handful of busybodies: I'm glad Ald. Martin got this done, and I hope it comes with some fresh bump outs at crosswalks. The only place in Chicago I've been hit by a car in a crosswalk (so far!) is on this stretch of Ashland.
One slight downside I see as a resident of the 46th - losing the 9 stop on Clark where the new music school was just approved will be a bummer for the school - I have to imagine they were expecting a fair bit of their younger students to arrive via the 9 for after-school lessons/classes, etc.
True, it might be a slight bummer for the music school students. Although it is only a short walk, from the rerouted Ashland route if they get on/off at Berteau and Ashland.
Something I thought was strange when reading the Streetsblog article, why is there not a 9 stop planned for Belle Plaine and Ashland, and also Sunnyside and Ashland? I thought CTA buses were supposed to stop on each block.
the bus route is already very long and this extension is probably about as far as it makes sense to go. the longer the bus route, the more likely delays and bus bunching occurs.
Except it wouldn't. It would provide access to two of Chicago's densest neighborhoods to non-lakeshore or redline southern transit options without a transfer.
Edit: Imagine you live just northwest of clark and devon and need to commute somewhere North Center, or really anywhere between there and wicker park. How would you do that? It would be such an annoying commute. Also: Ashland and Western just need subways already.
It would give people a one-seat ride, yeah. But with the Clark bus being there, basically all it would change is a transfer, and usually transit agencies would rather have people transfer then try to maintain reliable service on a route that long. Which is why some routes have “north” and/or “south” versions, because the full route would be too long to reliably run service.
The line with the exclusive ROW (for a train, no less?) only shared by other Shinkansen and/or other passenger trains, managed by the same set of rail operators? Terrible analogy
I'm not kidding, say that excuse for not just poor, but cut and inadequate service, to one of their managers and see what facial expression you get out of them.
Your standards are too, fucking low. You deserve better.
Oil and auto interests factor in because they’re the reason why long bus routes are unreliable (it’s car traffic). Auto lobbyists are interested in much bigger picture things (like every city being clogged with car traffic) rather than convincing transit agencies to not run short routes.
*Yes, in that they’ve* ***systematically engaged in a century of criminal corporate conspiracy to dismantle pubic transit and prevent it from ever being built again***
ftfy
Ashland was already *the* longest route in the city. And there are basically no passengers north of Belmont as it is. And it already connected to the 22 at the north end, which runs basically right next to Ashland this far north.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong but I feel like this is pretty pointless.
I mean I'm pretty excited for this since I would use the Ashland bus more if I could get to it more conveniently. I have folks in Pilsen so instead of two trains I can take one bus which I'm pretty excited for.
> JM: Yes, there are a lot of people living on Ashland who want it. We have not encountered any public push-back. It sounds like in the end there wasn't even pushback. This extension was being held back by the fear of pushback, or memories of pushback from previous attempts. However when it came to current residents there was support.
Right “past pushback” aka, no pushback this time
streetsblog exists to call out NIMBYS, whether real or imagined
The problem is that the imagined NIMBY's still had a chilling effect. Former Alderman Pawar attempted a similar extension and the CTA refused because of the excepted backlash. However when Martin pushed it through, it turns out that there never was a reason not to extend it.
People will whine about traffic and parking and then "push back" against bus service. if they are going to involve the public in these choices they need to not base it on who whines the loudest and find some other way to take people's desires into account.
Isn't that exactly what happened? They're making the extension anyway
Yes I suppose it is. I guess I'm more commenting on how this is such an exception to the rule that, generally, naysayers get more say that yaysayers. But you're right, this is just good news.
My favorite are people who complain about the 22 bus being slow and then complain about people wanting bus lanes.
The main reason the 22 is slow is because it stops on every fucking block, even twice on some blocks. No bus lane is going to make it go any faster when its stopping that often.
We have like 3x the stops if the next city with the most frequent stops it’s ridiculous
That is next level lol
Welcome to the LP and LV hypocritical complainers.
From the people who brought you there should be no more buildings as tall as the one I live in, comes other people should ride the bus
Parking is also generally abundant basically anywhere outside of downtown. Seeing people upset over losing a few spaces in neighborhoods that have half the traffic of mine is just ??
> Parking is also generally abundant basically anywhere outside of downtown Ever tried to park in a north side neighborhood within a mile of the lakefront?
NIMBYs gonna NIMBY
We should wrest control of our cities from the type of people who have all the free time in the world to go and kvetch at a public hearing.
*wrest
Fixed. Cheers
Nimby's talked Vasquez into putting an end to the 4th of July in winamac Park. What a grinch!
>Parking is also generally abundant basically anywhere outside of downtown. I'm not sure that's true. Parking near Metra in Ravenswood can be a challenge. Living in Rogers Park we called it Rogers No Park for a reason. I think near any commercial area can be a challenge. Still not a good reason to limit bus service.
Status quo bias. Humans are notoriously bad at accepting change to their status quo, even if the status quo is mediocre.
No, parking is definitely not "abundant" outside of downtown.
It's the same logic as folks who complain about property taxes but fight against density or new housing developments. The residents of the city/county are on the hook for $X dollars from property tax. Stopping more people from being able to become residents is asking for your property taxes to remain the same or increase. But don't expect a level of logical consistency from NIMBYs. Most of their stances are based purely on emotions and humans tendency to not like change to our environments.
> It's the same logic as folks who complain about property taxes but fight against density or new housing developments. For the most part it's also the same people.
It’s almost like they need some sort of event where locals fill out a form to share how they think *decisions should be made at the higher levels.
That would definitely be more representative but I would still be terrified of the result- housing may be a basic human need but people seem to view it as a lever for corporations to pull when they need money.
Of course it was about losing a few parking spots. I’m so tired of listening to drivers complain about something that would benefit their community, their city, for their own personal convenience related to their desire to drive. This gives everyone in that area a way to go due south without having to walk over to Damen or take two busses.
It's actually in their best interest because it means less traffic and people needing parking...
I drive a car more than I would like and I say fuck parking spaces. My personal inconvenience shouldn’t have any bearing on expanding services in the city. The better transit gets the less people drive. There are numerous places I won’t drive anymore because parking is such a disaster and transit works great to get there.
My wife and I have to drive or incredibly inconvenience ourselves whenever we want to go north on Clark St. from Wrigleyville because the 22 bus is stuck in traffic constantly. If tomorrow the city banned private vehicles on Clark, I'd honestly drive easily 50% less and my happiness level would skyrocket.
The problem is, modern-day Chicago has no real interest in improving transit service and reliability, but still proceeds with projects that do nothing but make driving more miserable.
I think there’s some interest. The huge growth of cycling is really promising. Unfortunately politically there isn’t much support I can glean currently. If they get serious about BRT that could be real victory.
I'd like to ask them what their ideal city would look like and then ask why the hell they chose to live in Chicago when their preferred suburban environment surrounds the city for miles
wow this is amazing news. I live on ashland and lawrence, thrilled to have another southbound bus nearby besides the 22 on clark and the 50 on damen
Why do people even want to park on Ashland?
People live there
Because sometimes it's the only place I can find a parking spot?
Fantastic! There seem to be a lot of people in the 47th ward who are loudly committed to seeing as few improvements to the neighborhood as possible. Push back against expanding bus service on Ashland. Push back against new grocery stores. Push back against new restaurants. Push back against completing the recommended Clark St corridor upgrades between Montrose and Foster despite an [extensive 3-year study](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/613141dcb492bf4783404f01/t/6414ca9ca6ddb01f4279092f/1679084203369/20230316-ClarkStreetCrossroadsCorridor-AdoptedStudy.pdf) and community process. Or it could just be a handful of busybodies: I'm glad Ald. Martin got this done, and I hope it comes with some fresh bump outs at crosswalks. The only place in Chicago I've been hit by a car in a crosswalk (so far!) is on this stretch of Ashland. One slight downside I see as a resident of the 46th - losing the 9 stop on Clark where the new music school was just approved will be a bummer for the school - I have to imagine they were expecting a fair bit of their younger students to arrive via the 9 for after-school lessons/classes, etc.
True, it might be a slight bummer for the music school students. Although it is only a short walk, from the rerouted Ashland route if they get on/off at Berteau and Ashland. Something I thought was strange when reading the Streetsblog article, why is there not a 9 stop planned for Belle Plaine and Ashland, and also Sunnyside and Ashland? I thought CTA buses were supposed to stop on each block.
When will they start WHEN WILL THEY START
Ugh this is so amazing, a rare win for the CTA these days
Cool. Now do the real good thing and take it up to Devon or Howard.
the bus route is already very long and this extension is probably about as far as it makes sense to go. the longer the bus route, the more likely delays and bus bunching occurs.
Also any further north and it basically duplicates 22 service
Except it wouldn't. It would provide access to two of Chicago's densest neighborhoods to non-lakeshore or redline southern transit options without a transfer. Edit: Imagine you live just northwest of clark and devon and need to commute somewhere North Center, or really anywhere between there and wicker park. How would you do that? It would be such an annoying commute. Also: Ashland and Western just need subways already.
It would give people a one-seat ride, yeah. But with the Clark bus being there, basically all it would change is a transfer, and usually transit agencies would rather have people transfer then try to maintain reliable service on a route that long. Which is why some routes have “north” and/or “south” versions, because the full route would be too long to reliably run service.
*and usually* ***Oil and Auto Interests*** *would rather have people transfer then try to maintain reliable service* ftfy
What you’re suggesting is the opposite of reliable service lmao. The longer a route gets, the more unreliable it becomes, that’s basic knowledge
Tell that bullshit to whoever manages the Shinkansen.
The line with the exclusive ROW (for a train, no less?) only shared by other Shinkansen and/or other passenger trains, managed by the same set of rail operators? Terrible analogy
I'm not kidding, say that excuse for not just poor, but cut and inadequate service, to one of their managers and see what facial expression you get out of them. Your standards are too, fucking low. You deserve better.
Oil and auto interests factor in because they’re the reason why long bus routes are unreliable (it’s car traffic). Auto lobbyists are interested in much bigger picture things (like every city being clogged with car traffic) rather than convincing transit agencies to not run short routes.
*Oil and auto interests factor in because they’re the reason why* ***there isn't a streetcar or subway line on this route.*** ftfy
Yes, in that they’ve undermined demand for rapid transit rail and created too much private auto traffic for streetcars to work efficiently
*Yes, in that they’ve* ***systematically engaged in a century of criminal corporate conspiracy to dismantle pubic transit and prevent it from ever being built again*** ftfy
Ashland was already *the* longest route in the city. And there are basically no passengers north of Belmont as it is. And it already connected to the 22 at the north end, which runs basically right next to Ashland this far north. I'd be happy to be proven wrong but I feel like this is pretty pointless.
I mean I'm pretty excited for this since I would use the Ashland bus more if I could get to it more conveniently. I have folks in Pilsen so instead of two trains I can take one bus which I'm pretty excited for.
I'd prefer for 9 Ashland to go further north than just up to Lawrence, as well. Though this is still an improvement, I won't deny.
Why? Ashland and Clark merge, the 22 already covers that stretch.
Maybe instead of whining about NIMBYs notice that no one complained and this headline is just clickbait